History of the Alternative PSI
At Independent Assessment Services, LLC, we will walk your client, and their families, through the process of the Pre-sentence Investigation. We have the knowledge, experience, and expertise necessary to provide the Court with a well balanced report which will be used when the judge gives their sentence. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice completed a history of the Pre-sentence Investigation. Their thoughts on the Alternative Pre-Sentence Investigation follow. Read the entire article here.
Defense-Based Presentence Reports
Historically, responsibility for the development and presentation of the PSI was solely the
role of the probation officer. However, PSIs produced by probation department’s have
long been criticized for being routinzed and biased against the defendant. This issue was
compounded by the failure of defense attorneys to properly prepare their clients for the
probation interview and for failing to adequately plan for the sentencing hearing.
In the 1960’s a new era in the history of the PSI emerged with the pioneering efforts of
Dr. Thomas Gitchoff, a professor of criminal justice at San Diego State University. To
improve the quality of defense representation at the sentencing hearing, Dr. Gitchoff
introduced the privately commissioned PSI. Gitchoff’s reports, known as the
Criminological Case Evaluation and Sentencing Recommendation, provided a
comprehensive analysis of the offender’s background and motivations that exceeded the
typical PSI generated by probation departments.
At the time Gitchoff was introducing his methods to California courts, the Offender
Rehabilitation Project of the Legal Aid Agency for the District of Columbia also began
offering defense-based PSIs to indigent clients. This program is considered the oldest ongoing
defense-based PSI program in the country.
The use of privately commissioned defense-based PSIs swelled in the late 1970’s and
1980s as a result of efforts by correctional reformer Jerome Miller and the National
Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA). Miller recognized the potential of the PSI
while commissioner of youth corrections in Pennsylvania, where he used individualized
disposition recommendations to remove 400 youths from the Pennsylvania’s notorious
Camp Hill Prison.
Through his "Client Specific Planning" (CSP) model, Miller promoted the use of
defense-based PSIs to public defender offices and nonprofit legal aid and offender advocacy
groups around the Country. Criticism of the defense-based PSI are centered on
the belief that it is primarily available to only those defendant’s with financial resources.
However, in recent years nonprofit agencies such as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice have emphasized court-appointed or public defender cases with sliding scale rates.
In addiion, the Washington DC-based Sentencing Project has made the promotion of
defense-based PSI reports a integral part of its efforts to improve the quality of defense
representation. Because of the increasing role of defense-based PSIs, a number of law
schools, led by the University of Minnesota, are integrating sentencing advocacy into
their curriculums.
The potential for defense-based PSIs to reduce prison commitments within a jurisdiction
was demonstrated in San Francisco’s juvenile justice system during the 1980s and 1990s.
With the hiring of two social workers to prepare PSIs by the juvenile division of the
public defender’s office, and the introduction of defense-based PSI’s to court-appointed
attorneys by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice staff, the county registered a
73% reduction in commitments to state juvenile correctional institutions.
With the growing acknowledgment for improved defense attorney representation in the
sentencing process, it is likely that the use of private defense-based sentencing reports
will continue to expand.
Conclusion
Despite the current trend towards offense-based sentencing, the PSI will continue to be an
essential element of the American criminal justice system. The information contained in
the PSI is critical in assisting judges in rendering sentencing decisions and providing vital
information to correctional officials in determining classifications and release decisions.
While its content and emphasis has changed in recent years, the PSI remains the most
influential document in the sentencing of criminal defendants.
Defense-Based Presentence Reports
Historically, responsibility for the development and presentation of the PSI was solely the
role of the probation officer. However, PSIs produced by probation department’s have
long been criticized for being routinzed and biased against the defendant. This issue was
compounded by the failure of defense attorneys to properly prepare their clients for the
probation interview and for failing to adequately plan for the sentencing hearing.
In the 1960’s a new era in the history of the PSI emerged with the pioneering efforts of
Dr. Thomas Gitchoff, a professor of criminal justice at San Diego State University. To
improve the quality of defense representation at the sentencing hearing, Dr. Gitchoff
introduced the privately commissioned PSI. Gitchoff’s reports, known as the
Criminological Case Evaluation and Sentencing Recommendation, provided a
comprehensive analysis of the offender’s background and motivations that exceeded the
typical PSI generated by probation departments.
At the time Gitchoff was introducing his methods to California courts, the Offender
Rehabilitation Project of the Legal Aid Agency for the District of Columbia also began
offering defense-based PSIs to indigent clients. This program is considered the oldest ongoing
defense-based PSI program in the country.
The use of privately commissioned defense-based PSIs swelled in the late 1970’s and
1980s as a result of efforts by correctional reformer Jerome Miller and the National
Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA). Miller recognized the potential of the PSI
while commissioner of youth corrections in Pennsylvania, where he used individualized
disposition recommendations to remove 400 youths from the Pennsylvania’s notorious
Camp Hill Prison.
Through his "Client Specific Planning" (CSP) model, Miller promoted the use of
defense-based PSIs to public defender offices and nonprofit legal aid and offender advocacy
groups around the Country. Criticism of the defense-based PSI are centered on
the belief that it is primarily available to only those defendant’s with financial resources.
However, in recent years nonprofit agencies such as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice have emphasized court-appointed or public defender cases with sliding scale rates.
In addiion, the Washington DC-based Sentencing Project has made the promotion of
defense-based PSI reports a integral part of its efforts to improve the quality of defense
representation. Because of the increasing role of defense-based PSIs, a number of law
schools, led by the University of Minnesota, are integrating sentencing advocacy into
their curriculums.
The potential for defense-based PSIs to reduce prison commitments within a jurisdiction
was demonstrated in San Francisco’s juvenile justice system during the 1980s and 1990s.
With the hiring of two social workers to prepare PSIs by the juvenile division of the
public defender’s office, and the introduction of defense-based PSI’s to court-appointed
attorneys by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice staff, the county registered a
73% reduction in commitments to state juvenile correctional institutions.
With the growing acknowledgment for improved defense attorney representation in the
sentencing process, it is likely that the use of private defense-based sentencing reports
will continue to expand.
Conclusion
Despite the current trend towards offense-based sentencing, the PSI will continue to be an
essential element of the American criminal justice system. The information contained in
the PSI is critical in assisting judges in rendering sentencing decisions and providing vital
information to correctional officials in determining classifications and release decisions.
While its content and emphasis has changed in recent years, the PSI remains the most
influential document in the sentencing of criminal defendants.